This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.


← Two equally bad fallacies

Jos Gibbons's Avatar Jump to comment 21 by Jos Gibbons

Quine, I'm using the word "irrefutable" in a different sense from the one in which you're using it. Essentially you're considering an argument "irrefutable" iff the claim that the material conditional whose antecedent is the conjunction of those true premises present within it and whose consequent is the conclusion is itself a neither empirically nor a logically falsifiable statement, i.e. iff said material conditional is an irrefutable statement. What I meant when I spoke of an argument as being irrefutable is a much stronger condition than that, namely that one cannot demonstrate that, to be valid, the argument is contingent on unjustified assumptions. Sorry about the confusion.

Tue, 31 Jan 2012 09:00:52 UTC | #912983